What about interns? Could somebody take a job for less money if they were learning a business? I favor a minimum wage, and indexing, but by the time you add health care and SS, the cost of an employee is getting up there. I would like to see people be able to volunteer, or make a token wage for a period of time, in order to learn a business or get a foot in the door.

This discussion is constructive however. Do you think people might be so bored with this campaign that we could get around to talking about issues? That might be all that's left if the horse race reporting and gaffes are lacking.

I am, sadly, reminded of one of the few television shows I watch. But Matt Groening's satirical take on politics is as relevant as ever. Specifically it would be the two clone presidential candidates Jack Johnson and John Jackson. "I say your 3 cent titanium tax goes too far." "And I say your 3 cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."

Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney have any clear policy ideal beyond "getting elected". The idea that there might be a CORRECT government policy has been relegated to the acceptance that whatever the policy is, it must be as readily convenient and middling as possible.

Romney might create a business environment being in business....In keeping with A.C.Pigous's theory of fluctuations/trade cycles, Romney might try to create a sense of optimism in the midst of pessimism...For Pigous says trade cycles are caused by alternate waves of optimism and pessimism.....Romney or Obama, this economy badly needs an upturn.good luck to both

If you want to know what a Republican President would actually do, don't expect him to tell you. Instead, look at the results of eight years of Bush/Cheney rule. Then inflate those acts of warmongering, lawlessness, environmental destruction, regressive taxation, and pandering to corporations by a hefty factor due to desperation. The GOP's last grasp at power will be at most a short ride as demographic realities doom the party of the oligarchy that just says "no" to everyone else.

Rather than demographic realities, it will be economic realities which are more likely to doom the GOP's chances. At the time when most Americans realize that keeping the Dems in control ensures more of a "free ride", the Dems will have "a lock".

On those rare occasions candidates give definite answers to policy questions, tying them to their answers can indeed raise the quality of the campaign. Getting the two major candidates (Obama & Romney) to lock in now on wage indexing -- or anything else with substantive heft -- might rob the media of grist for their tabloidification mill and force pundits to focus on core issues.

Associating a vote for Paul as adhering to an anti-government philosophy is ridiculous. Why bother to participate in the democratic process if you're anti-government?

Does the following make a person anti-gov't?: failing to see how a massive Keynesian response to folks taking on too much debt isn't a pernicious form of good money after bad?... Pernicious because the future earnings of innocent parties are being securitized (via higher taxes and inflation) to pay for these new Keynesian excesses...

After the Iowa caucus you declared that it was now simply a two horse race between Romney and bible-basher Santorum, even though Ron Paul finished just behind them and ignoring the obvious fact that Santorum has no chance outside of Bible Belt territory. The main point in boosting a no-hoper like Santorum was so that the Economist could deny the threat from Ron Paul.

The eventual result in New Hampshire was thus predictable - Santorum came absolutely nowhere and Ron Paul emerged as the clear alternative to Wall Street's poster boy, even trouncing Huntsman who bet the farm on this state.

The Economist's coverage of the primaries is wearily predictable - do everything possible to pump up Romney, the sock puppet of Wall St, and move heaven and earth to belittle and minimize Ron Paul. The effect of Ron Paul on Wall St apologists like the Economist is like sunlight on vampires.

@ The Economist
so a couple of primaries (with a very few amount of people as opposed to the nation) has been run and Romney will get the nomination after a near tie and a predicted win. I think you missed as their are still many primaries to go.

Good idea to pin Mr. Romney down. He says some scary things, for example, contrasting himself with Obama, that "He [Obama] doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it. [Obama] chastises friends like Israel; I’ll stand with our friends. [Obama] apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth." What? Not even when we've done something wrong, or when Israel is the main obstacle to Middle East peace? Romney says "Obama wants to fundamentally transform America; we want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great." What? Like invading other countries and threatening others based on the "big bully in the schoolyard" theory of international relations. Ask Mexicans, Canadians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Iranians or Iraqis. All this sounds like American exceptionalism run rampant. Despite his "moderate" image Romney is hawkish on foreign policy, and that may be partly his Mormon background - there's a streak of "American exceptionalism", a "God's country" and a "light on a hill" attitude, in Mormon history. There is a tradition of enlisting and fighting in the US military - it was a late 1800s Church-encouraged way of demonstrating Mormon loyalty to the US, and it continues. There were many Mormons involved in the Iraq war (the abundance of language skills among Mormons didn't hurt).

But Jon Huntsman, also Mormon, isn't like that. They both went on missions, Huntsman to Taiwan and Romney to France. Many Mormons "broaden out" because of exposure to other cultures during their missions. Romney's mission time in France was a difficult time - making few converts, combating French anti-Vietnam War attitudes, experiencing the left-wing street riots typical of that time, being in a car accident where someone close to him was killed, returning home to be shocked to find that his father had turned against the Vietnam War. He married a Mormon convert and spent 4 years at Brigham Young University, a conservative Mormon campus. As he put it himself (see the Mitt Romney Wikipedia article), his faith was deepened during his mission time. But apparently he deepened rather than broadened. Jon Huntsman broadened - after his mission to Taiwan he went to the University of Pennsylvania and married someone raised as an Episcopalian. He remains a Mormon but admits to diverse religious influences in his life and to being "more spiritual than religious". He was Obama's ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011, and believes in science (including evolution and global warming). So Huntsman is dead meat as far as the Republican Right is concerned, however attractive he may be to everyone else. But he was a successful 2-term governor of Utah, greatly increasing his margin of victory for his second term.

On the good side, with Romney the country would be well run efficiency-wise. But Romney worries me especially regarding things that will resonate with the Republican right wing. Rather than being a "Republican moderate", I fear that Romney is more of a Trojan horse – especially on things I care about like foreign policy, and fairness at home. With any luck, Obama – if re-elected - would appoint Jon Huntsman to a post more senior than ambassador to China.

I'm against indexing anything to "inflation" (except tax brackets) because that gives the government hacks an "out" when they create inflationary policies. When the Federal Reserve or idiotic government policies create an inflationary environment, the "lawmakers" must explicitly acknowledge their malfeasance and failure when they vote to increase the minimum wage or anything else. One of the main problems with California State Government is that government employee (also known as "overhead," "parasites," or "dead weight") pensions are indexed to inflation while those few in the private (productive) sector with pensions are NOT indexed to inflation, exacerbating the divide between the government-created royalty and the productive sector.

"But here's a different concept. How about we spend a few months trying to find out what Mitt Romney would actually do as president, and whether his policies would be beneficial?" Amen! So far all I have heard is his wife asked him if he would fix things and he said yes. Of course if he plans on fixing things, that would mean that he...the government.... would have to interfere in the lives of the population of the US... many of whom have made it known they don't want the government telling them what to do? Maybe he means that he will fix the Euro crisis. Now that would help to fix the US.